What Is the Higher Criticism?

What is the Higher Criticism?

BY ROBERT C. WEBB

I.

The expression "higher criticism" is familiar today, and, in popular understanding, at least, is synonymous with the idea of destructive criticism of the Bible, and particularly with the theory that the books of the Old Testament are composites of separate "documents," of late origin and of defective historical authority. Properly speaking, the term involves nothing of the kind, since there may be a higher criticism of the Bible, or of any other book, that will be the reverse of destructive, either to its claims or to its integrity. This is the case because, in proper understanding, the involved processes are perfectly legitimate, also perfectly rev- erent and appreciative. Thus, there are two kinds of criticism— and "criticism" means only "judgment" or the "act or process of — forming a judgment" and they are, respectively, the "lower crit- icism" and "higher criticism." The first involves merely the examination of the words and language used in a book, with the view to determining, as far as possible, the correct original read- ing of separate passages in dispute, or with variant readings. It is thus concerned entirely with questions of philology and in-

terpretation of phrases and sentences, and can be concerned with possible origins of separate passages, only in an entirely secondary sense. The "higher criticism," on the other hand, is properly speaking quite entirely historical and archaeological, being de- finable as an "inquiry into the nature, origin, and date of the documents with which we are dealing, as well as into the historical value and credibility of the statements which they contain." It is called "higher" because, properly, it involves a larger and more inclusive inquiry into a book and its origin than would be con- sistent in the other variety of criticism. Wemay understand, therefore, that anyone who has, in true scientific spirit, endeavored to relate the books of the Bible, or of any other body of litera- ture, to their origins in time, and to establish their real historical relationships, is a "higher critic" in the real sense. It is emi- nently desirable, indeed, to make such an inquiry in a purely scientific spirit, since, otherwise the conclusions reached are bound to be open to objection, and are liable to be discredited by future investigators, even by those who would be glad to accept our opinions, if the facts, as known, would allow of a demonstration, or. at least, of a presumption of accuracy.

WHAT IS THE HIGHER CRITICISM? 621

As may be readily understood from what we have stated, the attempt to determine the historical position of any ancient work, its reliability and authority in correctly picturing the period with

which it claims to deal, must involve a wide and thorough knowl- edge of the life and institutions of the period in question. Thus, some people have attempted to write what they call "historical novels" on the basis of defective knowledge of the periods which they attempt to portrav. Their writings may be interesting to anyone who knows as little as the writers, but for the student of history they are entirely unacceptable. Any such competent student of history, in giving his reasons for rejecting the accur- acy of the word-pictures drawn in such books would be exercising a form of "higher criticism." When, however, a man evidently presumes upon his own. knowledge in formulating an adverse opinion on any alleged historical writing, he is doing far more to bring himself and his methods into disrepute than to discredit the book which he is attempting to dissect. In some such spirit sev- eral "scholars" of a generation, or over, since, concluded that the great poems of Homer were mere composites of songs transmitted orally by numerous "bards" from time immemorial, and that they had no historical bases whatever. They even went so far as to indicate that the very name Homer had some such meaning as "pieced together," and that he was not, and could not have been, an historical character. They confidently referred to the siege of Trov. and to Troy itself, as legendary and mythical — mere fiction in fact. The researches of Schliemann, however, which resulted in the discovery of the very city of Troy mentioned by Homer, and led to the identification of other places and cities referred to by him, served as a sufficient offset to all the clever guess-work involved in the theorv, and led to its total disappear- ance from the consideration or discussion of the learned. The "sun-myth" craze was another historical "method" which was formerly overworked, and is now largely discredited since the ;

sober "second thought" of historians and archaeologists inclines them less readily to relegate all ancient heroes and prophets to the character of mere "avatars" of the Sun God. The so-called Baconian authorship theory of the poems and plays of Shake- speare is another goo" example of the perverse use of historical 1

material. On the basis of Shakespeare's alleged ignorance and worthlessness of character, it has been held that he could not possiblv have written the works commonly ascribed to him. Be- cause Bacon was the most learned and versatile writer of his time, it has been held that lie must have been the real author, who,

modestly preferring not to acknowledge the brilliant literary works which he is allege^ to have produced sought out the worth- less Shakespeare, and authorized him to "father" them. All this is bad enough, and improbable enough, but when sundry writers

622 IMPROVEMENT ERA attempt to "discover" clever ''cryptograms" in the plays of Shake- speare, which, according to some system of elimination and sub- stitution, announce that Bacon wrote the passage, or contain a message to posterity- one is tempted to believe that somebody is "filling ii]) the measure of his iniquity." Even more indefensible than this is the theory advanced by some that, as Shakespeare was "so ignorant," he could not have written the plays, and that they were mere "composite productions" concocted by the actors who plaved in Shakespeare's theater. A clever line of actors in- deed ! It mav he that either Bacon or the actors composed the Shakespearean plays, but no one has yet raised the theory to a respectable scientific basis. As vivid offsets to the methods of such critics, also of the "rationalistic" dissectors of the Hebrew Bible, we have the famous satire of Archbishop Whately, written in 1819, which argued that "nothing' is positively known concerning the life of Napoleon Bonaparte, and that it is somewhat doubtful whether

such a man ever lived." A later writer has produced quite as good a criticism of our pseudo-scientific methods in historical research in the "Great Gladstone Myth," which reduces the dis- tinguished British statesman to the shadowy outlines of mythol- ogy. It relates how that archaeologists of some future century, discovering a milestone inscribed 90 M., which ignorant people had always supposed to mean merely "00 miles to London." was really a votive monument with the meaning "Gladstone Optimus Maximus" (Gladstone Best and Greatest); evidently another "avatar" of the Sun God. Of course, such productions are merely contributions to the literature of humor and satire, and would not be seriously accepted by anyone, unless it be in the immensely distant future, but they maintain a fair show of "plaus- ibility" by the method of ignoring all facts and considerations not favorable to their main thesis, precisely as do the formulations of some ''scholars," ma'e in sober earnest. If Whittier was right when he wrote the lines. "The wrong that pains my soul below I dare not throne above," it is equally proper that any one of us insist that he will not consider conclusive, when urged in criticism of Shakespeare. Homer or the Bible, arguments that are aksm-d when applied to Napoleon and Gladstone. Such, indeed, is the crux of the whole matter. There is no harm whatever in making searching examinations of anv book, — even the Bible indeed, the more searching the examination the better. Nor is there anv nec p ssarv evil involve' in the recognition 1

of difficulties, as thev mav seem, in the way of accepting at once any opinion or belief regarding the origin or authority of such book, or books. It is even permissible that one consider that, in the arguments alleged, anv gfiven opinion in such matters is pre- ferable to another, or to all others. If an}- one. for example, is

!

WHAT IS THE HIGHER CRITICISM? 623

convinced that the evidence is all in favor of the contention that Francis Bacon wrote the plays ascribe! to Shakespeare, we may respect his freedom of choice in the matter, unless he elects to make his theory and himself obnoxious by ill-judged methods of "publication." What is inexcusable, however, is the insistence of the claim that an opinion which a man may see fit to espouse in such connections is the only true, intelligent and possible one, and that the holding- of opinions of a contrary character should expose one to ridicule and contempt. Now. there are departments of knowledge in which conclu- sions may be reached with such certainty and exactitude that the assertion of contrary opinions is merely the presumption of ig- norance. Xo mathematician, for example, could possibly com- prehend the point of view of a person who, with adequate in- formation on the facts of the exact science of mathematics, could doubt the results attained by recognized methods of computation. The chemico-physicist could be excused for impatience with ex- pressed skepticism on the revelations of spectrum analysis, and this for the very excellent reason that, so far as human knowledge can discover the facts, such revelations are almost unimaginably exact. With a very similar degree of amusement, also, any competent astronomer must view the familiar assertion of a certain famous colored preacher that "The sun do move." There is such a thing as exact science, and there are such things as

undeniable deductions. All departments of knowledge, however, are not similarly exact. In many of them, indeed, there are, and perhaps always will be, wide margins of uncertainty upon even "fundamental principles ;" and this is a condition that any per- fectly candid mind isbound to recognize. In fact, the conceit of sufficient and unquestionable knowledge is nearly the most serious delusion against which the possessor of the "intellectual tempera- ment" should sedulously guard himself. Thus many men of pro- found learning —perhaps, own consciences are concerned also, of perfect sincerity, so far as their — seem to have become infecte 1

with this sad malady. Having heard of the surprising results achieved by the methods followed in the physical and mathe- matical sciences, they seem to assume that their own attainments in their special departments are amply sufficient grounds for sim- ilarly certain and authoritative demonstrations. How many a small boy has narrowly escaped serious injury in his confident efforts to reproduce the feats of circus acrobats, utterly unaware that such abilities come only after years of patient and arduous training and practice We need not pause to argiie to the ordinary intelligent reader that such departments as history, archaeology, philosophy and literary criticism are not properly fields for exact demonstrations, except' within the most limited and scattered areas, if at all. Too

624 IMPROVEMENT ERA many essential facts are entirely unfamiliar and undiscovered in all these branches to allow any one to maintain the contrary con- tention. Thus, as a very "good joke," we often hear of the "phil- osopher," who, when reminded that his opinions did not square with the facts, remarked complacently, "So much the worse for the facts." Nor, as we suppose, could there be any one more ridiculous than the "great scholar" who rewrote the history of Rome, and explained discrepancies by the assertion that, "since he had thought and studied so much on the subject of Rome, he was, in reality, a 'contemporary,' hence able to speak from his own knowledge." But such examples are not jokes at all: they are simply "cases" of a common malady, which manifests itself in almost amazing displays of over-confidence. The involved mental attitude reminds one strongly of the remark of the late Rev. Isaac Hecker, a Roman priest and sometime "transcend- entalism" He was once asked whether his old friend, Bronson Alcott, believed in God. "Not in the God that we believe in," he answered. "He believed in the Bronson-Alcott god: he was his own god." We are not concerned with Mr. Alcott or with the accuracy of Father Hecker's judgment. Nevertheless, we are bound to recognize that there is "something true to the life" in this remark. There are very many people who will endlessly ridicule the Papal claim to "infallibility" merely because they consider that they themselves are "opposition popes," and the "real Simon Pures" at that. And upon such a flimsy foundation as this are built many of the most ambitious edifices of "modern critical scholarship." Lest we be suspected of over-confidence in our own asser- tions, we may refer to the familiar expression of no less a scholar than Prof. Sayce of Oxford University, who speaks feelingly of the "papacy of the modern critical school." Nor need we add comments of our own to such a statement as the following from the late Dr. Cheyne made in course of a defense of "critical methods," particularly of certain conclusions based on "infer- ence," which he terms "imaginative criticism." "Let no one," says he, "indulge in cheap sarcasm on imaginative criticism.

• • • These intuitions are not purely accidental. They spring, in exegesis, from sympathy with an author, and a sense of what he can and what he cannot have said in history, from a sedulously ;

trained imaginative sense of antiquity supported by a large com- mand of facts." (Jewish Religious Life, page 4.) Dr. Cheyne did not attempt to "rewrite the history of Rome." but he seems to think that "scholars" can restore the perfection of ancient life and environments, merely because a trained anatomist is able to give a fairly accurate representation of an extinct animal from a few assorted bones. We must remember, however, that, in dealing with history, or other matters involving human nature and

WHAT IS THE HIGHER CRITICISM? 625

its activities,we are concerned with situations in which mechanical laws have not an undisputed sway. If a modern "critic" is so well acquainted with an ancient author that he has a "sense of what he can and what he cannot have said," his acquaintance is certainly far more intimate than that which most of us enjoy with even our closest friends, sometimes even with ourselves. — But the supreme self-confidence is it also a phase of "ex- — aggerated ego," as the alienists term it? is proof even against facts, the real inspiration of all real science. Thus, Professor Sayce gives the following, which is a fair sample of the sort of thing encountered all along the line. "A typical example," he says, "of the 'critical' method has just been brought under my observation. Dr. Chaplin has in his possession a small haema- tite weight found on the site of Samaria and inscribed with let- ters of the eighth century, B. C." [The inscription reads, ac- cording to translation quoted elsewhere, "a quarter of a quarter of a natsag," an Asiatic standard of about 640 grains. J "The let- ters are very clear, though one of the two lines of which they con- sist is somewhat worn. Dr. Neubauer and myself found that one of the words occurring in them is sh(e)l 'of.' The 'critics,' however, had determined that this was a word of late date, and had used it as an argument for denying the early date of the Song of Songs. Consequently it became necessary to get rid of the archaeological evidence which had so inconveniently turned up. First of all the genuineness of the inscription was denied, and when this argument failed it was asserted that the reading given by Dr. Neubauer and myself was false. The assertion was based on an imperfectly-executed cast in which the letters of the word slid — the first of which happens to be a good deal — rubbed are only partially reproduced. It might have been thought that before denying the reading of those who had handled the original stone, the 'critics' would at least have waited until they could have seen the weight itself. But such a procedure is not in accordance with 'the critical method,' and so slid and the Song of Songs are alike pronounced to be post-Exilic. Ex hoc discc omnia!" — The Higher Criticism and the Monuments. Pre- face (1893). With the quoted testimonies of men of such prominence in the learned world as Cheyne and Sayce, it would seem unnecessary to multiply evidences at this place that the "higher criticism," so called, of the Jewish and Christian scriptures presents no con- sistent claim to a perfectly scientific character. It is most char-

acteristically a system of guesswork bolstered up by a spirit of unmitigated dogmatism, which does not hesitate to interpret the facts of literature, history and archaeology to suit its own ends, and treats with ridicule and contempt any efforts, no matter by whom or on what evidences they may be urged, to argue the pos-

— ——— —

626 IMPROVEMENT ERA nihility that their factsmay be used with equal propriety in sup- port of opposite conclusions. It would he useless, therefore, to comment at length upon the fallacy of the separate claims made by destructive "critics," since their deliverances are accepted by their followers as of real "ex cathedra' authority, and on the strength of the "great names" which they represent. Wemust be content to explain the opinions of these people as faithfully as pos- sible, and then to give intelligible reasons why they are not to be considered finalities, and why contrary conclusions may be as often drawn from the facts which they allege. Our position will be, therefore, that the evidences admit the belief that the books of the Old Testament are not forgeries and composites of compari- tively modern fabrication, but present numerous evidences of an- tiquity that are incompatible with the late origins claimed for them. We shall discover, also, that the fundamental beliefs re- garding the Jewish and Christian religions have not been im- paired, and that the "rationalistic" arguments of those who con- tend against this conclusion are no more forcible now than in the days before the concoction of the evolution hypothesis and the enthronement of the "popes of scholarship."

That's Where the West Begins SELECTED

Out where the hand clasps a little stronger, Out where a smile dwells a little longer That's where the West begins; Out where the sun is a little brighter, Where snows that fall are a trifle whiter, Where the bonds of home are a wee bit tighter That's where the West begins.

Out where the skies are a trifle bluer, — Out where friendship's a little truer That's where the West begins; Out where a fresher breeze is blowing, Where there's laughter in everv streamlet flowing. Where there's more of reaping and less of sowing inat's where the West begins.

Out where the world is in the making, Where fewer hearts with despair are aching That's where the West begins: Where there's more of singing and less of sighing, Where there's more of giving and less of buying, And a man makes friends without half trying That's where the West begins. Chapman.